Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Theo đề nghị trước đó, bài giảng của Foucault không bao giờ được xem xét để xuất bản, và không nghi ngờ có một lý do tốt cho việc này. Tuy nhiên, khái niệm rất thích một cái gì đó của một sự phục hưng trong nghiên cứu văn hóa trong cuối những năm 1980 và trong những năm 1990. | Of Hallowed Spacings Diana s Crash as Heterotopia As suggested earlier Foucault s lecture notes were never reviewed for publication and doubtless there was a good reason for this. However the concept enjoyed something of a renaissance in Cultural Studies in the late 1980s and in the 1990s. As early as 1989 some scholars noted problems in the formulation of the concept. Benjamin Genocchio 1995 has summarized what he regards as the main problems there is firstly a coherency problem . Paraphrasing Noel Gray s critique Genocchio suggests that Foucault 1984 failed to differentiate heterotopias sufficiently clearly. If heterotopias are both outside of and inside of society then criteria have to be drawn up that clarify the nature of their difference. Secondly there is what we can describe as the paradox of naming - a point made by Genocchio and earlier by Steven Connor 1989 . In Genocchio s words in any attempt to mobilize the category of an outside or absolutely differentiated space it follows logically that the simple naming or theoretical recognition of that difference always to some degree flattens or precludes by definition the very possibility of its arrival as such 39 . This critique holds for both accounts of heterotopia but especially for the one that appeared in the preface of The Order of Things insofar as this account emphasizes the otherness alluded to by Borges. On the basis of these two problems Genocchio criticizes any literal applications of the concept. Scouring the absolute limits of imagination he says the question then becomes what cannot be designated a heterotopia It follows that the bulk of these uncritical applications of the term as a discontinuous space of impartial resistant use must be viewed as problematic 39 . In our view the second of these problems is the less substantial one. Just as it can be argued that any utterance begins to reify the world so any scholar can be accused of normalizing so-called absolute otherness. On the other hand .
